Information Seeking Behavior of Social Science Scholars, Scientists, and Researchers

Maruja De Villa Lorica
Paper Written in Spring 2009


Introduction

This paper aims to provide enhanced understanding on the information-seeking behavior of social science scholars, scientists, and researchers. It will a) define some terms and provide the typologies of social science data users; b) present research studies on information seeking behavior of social science scholars and researchers; and c) highlight researches that examine the preferred information strategies, channels, and sources of this particular user group.


Definition of Terms

Scholars, scientists and researchers are diverse group of professionals. Their common attribute is their use of information. As stated by Allen (1977 in Robin, 1981) the scientists’ principal goal is a published paper which is a systematic compilation of the inputs of the information processing system, then 'made available to other scientists to employ in their work’.

Social science is composed of diverse fields of study. As defined in the Dictionary of the Social Sciences (2002), it is an academic discipline concerned with the study of the social life of human groups and individuals including anthropology, communication studies, economics, human geography, history, political science, psychology and sociology.

Meho and Tibbo (2003) qualifies that a social science scholar is a member of one, or a combination of two or more, of the following academic sub-disciplines: anthropology, area studies, communication, economics, education, geography, history, political science, psychology, public administration, sociology, and women’s studies.

Meanwhile, Robbin (1981) has categorized social science data users into six typologies, namely: a) fact-finder; b) bottom-liner and trend-seeker; c) negotiator-transformer; d) bottom-liner/trend-seeker- negotiator/transformer; e) high priest; and f) scientist-sage. According to Robbin, fact-finders need specific numerical data, which represent facts such as population size. They need to locate a body of data (or a data base) which contains this fact or an easily understood series of numbers and to retrieve the numbers. This type of user has few analysis needs. Bottom-liner and trend seekers generally search for facts or numbers to make generalizations about certain conditions or processes. They need discrete data items which can then be summarized, classified, or sorted to reduce them to manageable groups.

On the other hand, Robbin describes negotiator-transformers as gatherers and transformers of numbers. They do not initiate the process, but are responsible for searching and selecting data according to predetermined requirements of a project. Once the data are gathered, negotiators-transformers transform or reformat data or prepare them to be linked to other data. The bottom-liner/trend-seeker- negotiator/transformers are those with computer experience. They are likely to interact with the support staff in some phase of their work.

The high priests, as articulated by Robbin, are those individuals who make judgments about reliability, quality, and acceptable degree of error. In the social sciences, they are the statisticians responsible for selecting appropriate statistical techniques and interpreting the results of statistical analysis. Finally, the scientist-sages, according to Robbin, are those who evaluate the results of statistical data analysis. Their goal is organize the 'bottom lines' or outputs to produce information and knowledge. They make qualitative judgments about the relevance of these outputs to the research questions posed at the beginning of the research process. Policy makers whose policy and actions are in part based on the selection of relevant evidence derived from statistical data are also included in the category of scientists-sages.

Information-Seeking Behavior of Social Science Scholars, Scientists, and Researchers

Ellis (1989) studied the activities and perceptions of academic social scientists at the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom. Ellis used informal semistructured interview among 48 scholars consisting of psychologists, educationalists, economists, sociologists, historians, geographers and political scientists. He analyzed the data using a grounded theory approach. From the results, Ellis identified six major categories to cover the characteristics of the information seeking patterns of social scientists, namely a) starting, b) chaining, c) browsing, d) differentiating, e) monitoring, and f) extracting.

According to Ellis, starting refers to seeking information on a new topic and gathering initial relevant information. Starting includes activities that form the initial search for information such as identifying sources that could serve as starting points of the search. These could be familiar sources used before or less familiar sources that can provide relevant information. These initial sources can lead to, or suggest, or recommend additional sources or references. Following up on these new leads from an initial source is the activity of Chaining.

Chaining, as clarified by Ellis, refers to following references in a work to its cited works (backward) and finding new citations to this work (forward). Backward chaining occurs when pointers or references from an initial source are followed, while forward chaining identifies and follows up on other sources that refer to an initial source or document. The next category, according to Ellis is browsing which refers to undirected information seeking activity. It is looking for information in a casual way, which by exploration could lead to chance discovery of information in areas of interest to the user. Browsing involves looking through tables of contents, lists of titles, subject headings, names of organizations or persons, abstracts and summaries. Next to browsing is differentiating is the process of discriminating between information sources using specific criteria. During differentiating, the information seeker filters and selects from among the sources by taking note of the differences between the nature and quality of the information offered.

Monitoring, as described by Ellis is the process of keeping abreast of developments in areas of research interests. By monitoring, the information seeker concentrates on core sources of information which may include personal contacts and publications. Extracting refers to working systematically through sources to identify relevant material of interest. An information seeker is able to achieve extracting by directly consulting the source, or by indirectly looking through bibliographies, indexes, or online databases.

Another study conducted on the information seeking behavior of social scientists and researchers was conducted by Meho and Tibbo (2003), with the aim of updating Ellis's study on social scientists to the era of the World Wide Web. In the study, Meho and Tibbo described and analyzed the information-seeking behavior of social science faculty studying stateless nations. For their participants/respondents, they selected scholars and researchers from different countries and from different social science disciplines. Sixty scholars participated in email interviews, and five scholars were interviewed face-to-face. The participants came from the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, Turkey, Bangladesh, Finland, Israel and the Republic of Ireland.

Based on their findings, Meho and Tibbo extended Ellis's model with four additional information seeking activities, namely: a) accessing, b) verifying, c) networking, and d) information managing. Accessing, as clarified by Meho and Tibbo, refers to obtaining the materials or the identified information objects. Verifying is checking the accuracy of the found information while networking refers to communicating and maintaining a close relationship with people and organizations. Information managing, according to Meho and Tibbo, refers to filing, archiving, and organizing the information objects information seekers use in research.

Further, Meho and Tibbo proposed four stages in the information seeking process of social scientists: searching, accessing, processing and ending. The searching stage is the period of identifying and gathering relevant materials while the accessing is the stage of obtaining needed materials or gaining access to information sources. At the processing stage, researchers analyze and synthesize the obtained information and write the final product. The ending stage indicates the end of a research project cycle.

Bronstein (2007) studied the role of the research phase in information seeking behavior of Jewish studies scholars to address two research questions: a) Which of the information-seeking activities proposed by Ellis's behavioural model are used by Jewish studies scholars in their academic work? b) Is there a relationship between the information activity used by the researcher and the stage of the research? The study consisted of a series of semi-structured interviews in which participants were asked to talk about any activities in their research work that had an information component.

Bronstein found that among Jewish studies scholars browsing library books and journals is an important aspect of their information search. They browse library stacks for new books and journals during the initial phase of their information seeking activity to stay current in their respective field of expertise. Further, Bronstein found that the information strategy of "networking” or the informal communication with colleagues, as elucidated by Meho and Tibbo (2003) is common among the participants/respondents. The participants have a close network of colleagues that represent a major channel of information for keeping up-to-date.
Information Strategies, Channels, and Sources of Social Science Scholars, Scientists, and Researchers

In the same study reported by Meho and Tibbo (2003), it was revealed that scholars studying stateless nations relied more on “their personal collections, fieldwork, other libraries, and archives than their own university library collection.” Equally important were grey literature and archival material, as well as contacts and acquisitions through friends and colleagues. They obtain essential material for general background and material for theoretical purposes from their respective university libraries. For additional materials, they search special libraries and collections, research- and national libraries. Online materials and the use of email provided great help in their research.

In another study, Wang (2006) reported the result of his research entitled “Interdisciplinary and Cross-cultural Study on Information Behaviors of Academic Researchers in the Internet Era” among 65 researchers in the United States (55 participants) and China (10 participants). In-depth face-to-face interviews were conducted among researchers in higher education from Computer Science, Engineering, Information Science, Journalism, and the humanities.

Wang found that the most commonly used Internet information and communication technologies (IICTs) for research are the World Wide Web, email, database, e-journal, online library catalog (OPAC), and digital library. New IICTs such as wiki and instant messaging are not yet widely adopted for research. The study also found that academic researchers in Computer Science and Engineering are early adopters of the Internet for research and are heavy users of digital sources while researchers in the humanities tend to use less digital resources. Wang added that Chinese academic researchers in Computer Science rank the Web much less important than email, digital library, and electronic journal. They also use slightly less digital resources than their US counterparts.

In the study of Bronstein (2007) among Jewish studies scholars, he found that participants are selective in their use of electronic channels for current awareness. They still prefer to use print channels unless the electronic channels provide a tangible benefit to the research process or shorten their information search. To keep up-to-date with current literature, participants use traditional information activities of browsing library stacks and tracking citations. Bronstein added that while participants are knowledgeable of different electronic channels available to them, they will consider using them only if they are convinced that these channels will have a direct benefit on their research efforts.

Conclusion

This paper discusses the information seeking behaviour of social scientists, scholars, and researchers by reviewing selected literature and research studies. Their preferred information strategies, channels and sources are also presented. Understanding the information seeking behavior of social scientists, scholars and researchers is necessary in planning, developing and implementing information systems for this particular user group.

References

Bronstein, J. (2007, April). The role of the research phase in information seeking behaviour of Jewish studies scholars: A modification of Ellis’s behavioural characteristics. Informationresearch, 12 (3). Retrieved March 28, 2009, from http://informationr.net/ir/12-3/paper318.html

Dictionary of the Social Sciences. (2002). New York: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, D. (1989). A behavioural approach to information retrieval system design. Journal of Documentation 45 (3). 171-212.

Meho L. I., & Tibbo, H. R. (2003). Modeling the information seeking behavior of social scientists: Ellis’s study revisited. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(6), 570-587. Retrieved March 25, 2009, from http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1641/pdf

Robbin, A. (1981). Strategies for improving utilization of computerized statistical data by the social science community. International Journal of Social Science Information Studies, 1, 89-109. Retrieved March 29, 2009 from http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/2295/01/RobbinStrategiesForImprovingUtilization SSIS1981.pdf

Wang, P. (2006). Information behaviors of academic researchers in the Internet era: An interdisciplinary and cross-cultural study. Delivered at the 1st International Scientific Conference: The Information Technology to Science, Economy, Society & Education (Cultural Center of Tripoli, Greece, 16-17 September 2006). Retrieved March 26, 2009 from http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1664/01/eRA_PeilingWang.pdf